Where are your critical thinking skills, everyone?
My, my. For supposed critical thinkers, we're not thinking very critically in this thread.
"She totally disagreed with the second hand smoke show. That's because she has asthma. She said that second hand smoke can cause her to go into an attack. So if people could smoke everywhere, she could die. She also said that just because there were no studies that showed it caused harm, there was no saying there would not be a study showing this in the future. She asked how many studies HAD been done. To me, this is good news. I think if she watched the shows and didn't question or disagree, I would be worried. She's thinking for herself and that is a good thing."
While it is a good thing that your daughter is thinking for herself, and I applaud you for encouraging that, it is dangerous to allow her to assume that anything that affects her in a negative way should be banned for all others. This is typical of the "the world revolves around me" syndrome that so many adolescents (and adolescent adults, as well as people with illnesses) are known for.
Your daughter will be better served by understanding that the world can be a very cruel place, and that it's best to be prepared to deal with asthma attacks regardless of where she is (as I'm sure you have taught her) than to believe that anything that can trigger an asthma attack should be outlawed.
We can't just make laws based on the possibility that there might be something "showing this in the future". If that were the case, we could make the case for outlawing all kinds of things, like serving steak in public, since someone could argue that steak fumes could be proven at some time in the future to cause long-term lung problems. (No doubt, vegetarians will try that at some point.) Anything "could" happen in the future. We have to go by what we know and can prove NOW.
I have asthma as well as many other autoimmune problems, and cigarette smoke affects me terribly. However, I am aware that I have the choice not to patronize establishments that allow smoking. If I choose to patronize an establishment that allows smoking, I pay the price, but it's my choice.
As a person suffering from multiple autoimmune illnesses (MCTD=Multiple Connective Tissue Disease) including Lupus, MS, RA, Sjogren's, et al. I have had to learn that there are many things that can make me very ill, and living in this world requires that I deal with those things rather than expect that they will all go away at my command (or the governments). I have no right to expect the world to change to suit my needs.
The mature individual does not expect a world of healthy people to change their behavior simply to placate their own desire to have less triggers present for their illness which would NOT trigger as severe a reaction if they were healthy.
It's not your daughter's fault she has ashtma, but it's not the world's fault either.
If the government wants to ban smoking on GOVERNMENT property, or PUBLICLY OWNED property, fine. But NOT in privately owned businesses.
It saddens me how many people imagine that it is okay for the government to make rules to establish what is and is not permissible in a privately-owned business simply because they "agree" with the decision or find that it suits their preferences, but are the first to bellow out their protest when the government makes a rule that they do not happen to agree with.
It's been proven that having regular pap smears and mammograms saves lives, but that doesn't mean the government has the right to dictate that every woman must have one in a free society.
This tugging on the government's skirt as if they are our mommies and daddies every time others won't bow down to our preferences is not only self-centered, it's quite dangerous and affirms the belief of so many in the government that it is their job to parent us, rather than to govern us.
Banning tobacco is fine, AS LONG AS IT IS THE RESTAURANT THAT DOES IT! There is a HUGE, GARGANTUAN (I so love that word, gargantuan, and so rarely have the opportunity to use it in a sentence... KB2) difference between the business owner or management making the decision and the GOVERNMENT effectively DICTATING the decision for ALL business owners. Let's not forget to exercise "critical thinking" in that area.
Selective "critical thinking" is equivalent to selective quoting of verses from "The Holy Bible".
In the ********! episode, they weren't referring to "causing harm" as meaning "nuisance" where you get watery eyes, maybe have to take a puff from your inhaler, get smelly clothes, et al. They were referring to ACTUAL PERMANENT HARM, as in CANCER, which has most certainly NOT been proven by any study. We need to remember what the intended definition of "harm" is in this case, lest we become confused and practice disorganized thinking.
The fact of the matter is, gasoline emissions cause me MUCH more respiratory distress when I'm sitting in traffic than second-hand smoke ever has. But that doesn't mean I get to play "little dictator" and cheer and applaud if the government should decide to ban gasoline simply because it annoys me because I have a respiratory illness.
There are many things in our environment that cause us a nuisance, including headaches, irritation, itching, smelly clothing, watery eyes, et al. That doesn't mean they should be banned by the government. Let the individual business decide that.
"Banning chainsaws is reasonable only if the chainsaws are an unavoidable part of the environment that clumsy, stupid people are required to enter to lead a realtively normal modern life."
You have to encounter gasoline emissions in order to lead a relatively healthy, normal modern life as well. I don't see them outlawing that!
"Another thing to consider is the risk/benefit tradeoff, and specifically the idea of risk to the unconsenting "public." You (and I, and everyone) have a duty under law to prevent foreseeable injury to people (basic tort theory). It's easy to foresee that smoking will cause "injury" to someone sensitive to smoke --- and it's your responsibility and duty to prevent that, if necessary, by not smoking in their presence."
I never consented to having to breathe gasoline emissions, nor to having to smell someone's farts, nor to having to smell someone's excrement in a public restroom, which makes me gag. Should they ban defacating in public restrooms as well? There's a HUGE difference between "injury" and "irritation". You're misinterpreting tort law and the word "injury" here. (My brother is an attorney, and I worked as a paralegal for several years in the area of tort law.)
"Whilst I am sympathetic to the civil rights arguments about cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants, I think people should see it from the perspective of two non-smoking parents with a child who want to go to a restaurant where everybody smokes everywhere. I mean its just revolting and disgusting. Your clothes, hair and skin get full of smoke. You wonder about the baby's lungs. You wonder about your own lungs."
When you have a child, you make some sacrifices. If you're so concerned about your child's lungs, you may have to forego some of the restaurant meals you'd like to have. Having a child doesn't mean everyone else should have to change a behavior like smoking just to accomodate your preferences and belief that encountering occasional second-hand smoke will cause long-term harm to your child. Really, you might want to stop taking your baby with you in the car where it will encounter toxic fumes from gasoline emissions, since they are actually PROVEN to cause long-term damage, whereas SECOND-HAND cigarette smoke on an OCCASIONAL basis (different than constant exposure in a residence) has NEVER been proven to cause long-term harm.
It's WONDERFUL when smokers are polite, and I find that most of them are. Unfortunately, having the government mandate good behavior simply because we imagine it to benefit us in a truly meaningful way when it comes to our long-term health when really it only prevents us from having to deal with minor nuisances on an occasional basis, does NOTHING to promote good behavior. It fosters resentment in those who recognize that the government often oversteps their authority, and it encourages others to attempt to control the behaviors of all others around them simply because it's their preference to do so.
Second-hand smoke can trigger asthma, but so can anything else. I often have bouts with it for no apparent reason, and yes, I consider it a nuisance more than a crisis, because it is MY responsibility as someone with this problem to either a) avoid places where I am likely to encounter triggers or b) be prepared to deal with triggers if I choose to be present in those places.
I'm not sure what is meant by "libertarian dogma", and I agree that at times Penn & Teller (mainly Penn) can go a bit to the extreme and forget to use common sense, but accusing someone of intelligently recognizing that the government has over-stepped its authority of adhering to dogma isn't accurate or appropriate. It's rhetoric.
Emotional maturity and mental self-discipline requires that we exercise critical thinking even about things that we feel should change in order to make OUR lives easier and use actual logic, rather than biased logic, in how we discuss them.
When you allow government to overstep its boundaries simply because you like what it's doing in that instance, you're subscribing to government as your god, your religion, and you're giving your power away.
You deserve what you tolerate. If you tolerate the government overstepping its bounds when you like the end result, you have NO right to complain when they overstep their bounds and it hurts you.
I don't want to hear any complaining from anyone here who is a victim of the government conducting an illegal search or any other offense, because you've already made it clear that you're for it, so long as its "for your own good".
Max
